Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

What I was more trying to get at is the assertion that it is necessary to hunt to put food on the table.

Unfortunately for some people it has become necessary.
Sad fact I know, but it is the case, and I'm not being snarky when I say that.

Quote:

Because the fact that there are game butchers implies that most people do not hunt for pleasure?

Please.

You said for sport.
People shoot for pleasure at paper targets, they also shoot in competition for sport.
Meaning two or more shooters competing to hit more targets faster.
Just a misunderstanding perhaps?

I would imagine many hunters do both.
They hunt because they prefer game meats and they also do it for pleasure.
On that we can agree I think.

Make gun use MANDATORY at every single public place -- movie theater, school, hospital, shopping mall, church, etc. No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs. Guns save lives, because gun users can prevent would be killers from committing massacres.

Unfortunately for some people it has become necessary.
Sad fact I know, but it is the case, and I'm not being snarky when I say that.

Then excuse my ignorance about these regions. But I cannot imagine that the vast majority of hunters do it simply because the food is necessary. But I'm willing to believe that a least a good amount do.

Quote:

You said for sport.
People shoot for pleasure at paper targets, they also shoot in competition for sport.
Meaning two or more shooters competing to hit more targets faster.
Just a misunderstanding perhaps?

I would imagine many hunters do both.
They hunt because they prefer game meats and they also do it for pleasure.
On that we can agree I think.

I'm sure they enjoy the meat, but I was just trying to say that most hunters do not necessarily hunt because they need to provide for their family. At least until I see some statistics on this, I cannot believe that at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx

@Reckoner: check the cost of meat lately? Hunting and cleaning and preserving the meat of a deer or boar costs far far less. The world isn't the way it is in your neighborhood. You have a lot of legitimate arguments on this topic that I agree with but this isn't really one of them.

Well if hunting is done correctly, this is true for these regions, but my question then would be is it actually necessary? Are these regions so impoverished that they'd starve if they couldn't hunt? And ideally do we even want a society where hunting is this important to keeping up if it is the case?

I don't know. I suppose I cannot attempt to fully understand such a place without having visited it.

------

Of course I have veered a bit off my main point for talking here is that I just simply don't like the false equivalency of guns with other things in a society. Whether or not a very small percentage of the US actually uses hunting as a major method of subsistence for their families is not really going to change that IMO.

Personally I believe the 2nd amendment has run its course in our society and at the very least needs a ton of regulation. Things like yearly psyche evaluations for owners, better paper trails, ,and hell even mandatory tests/learning classes for citizens wishing to purchase guns would go a long way to helping this cause. If the US at least had these things, it would be at least a manageable compromise in my eyes.

Personally I don't really think suicides should be lumped in as firearm deaths. Does gun make it easier to do on an impulse? of course, but you can hardly say that those people would not have killed themselves by other methods then or later, I have a hard time believing that the majority of people commit suicide as a spur-of-the-moment thing, as it's usually something that have been building up for awhile. A gun makes it easier to commit suicide, but I don't think it's fair to contribute the suicide to the gun.

Case in point, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and has extremely strict gun control. Do you think having more guns available in Japan would cause an increase in suicide rate, or would suicide-by-gun simply take the place of other methods?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vexx

I'll pretty much ditto what Syn posted.

I have a CCW permit and I think the laws regulating CCW's in most states *suck*. I'd like to see safety classes, I'd like to lethal situation training, law classes, marksmanship requirements. And continuing education.

Indeed, more training never hurts, especially for civilians that doesn't have a LE background, which would be most of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Wow. I posted a few hours ago, that I'd quit until the NEXT INCIDENT. But damn, this is a lot quicker than expected:

Personally I don't really think suicides should be lumped in as firearm deaths. Does gun make it easier to do on an impulse? of course, but you can hardly say that those people would not have killed themselves by other methods then or later, I have a hard time believing that the majority of people commit suicide as a spur-of-the-moment thing, as it's usually something that have been building up for awhile. A gun makes it easier to commit suicide, but I don't think it's fair to contribute the suicide to the gun.

Case in point, Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, and has extremely strict gun control. Do you think having more guns available in Japan would cause an increase in suicide rate, or would suicide-by-gun simply take the place of other methods?

Well it is possible that guns make impulse suicide much more easy and successful for people who use guns rather than swallowing a bottle of bills/slitting wrists/ etc.

EDIT: Also what you said about suicides is also applicable to homicides since people can still kill each other with or without guns, but guns simply make it easier.

Well it is possible that guns make impulse suicide much more easy and successful for people who use guns rather than swallowing a bottle of bills/slitting wrists/ etc.

EDIT: Also what you said about suicides is also applicable to homicides since people can still kill each other with or without guns, but guns simply make it easier.

Of course, and I noted that in my post as well. The key here is that suicides tends not to be something done on impulse (not to say there aren't any), but rather it's something that slowly builds up to it. This is why there are suicide hotlines and prevention programs, which aims to stop people from getting to that critical point and get them help and support. This is something those of us in the military especially gets talked to often about (pre/post deployment, yearly classes etc).

People don't just wake up one day and suddenly decides to off themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Personally I believe the 2nd amendment has run its course in our society and at the very least needs a ton of regulation. Things like yearly psyche evaluations for owners, better paper trails, ,and hell even mandatory tests/learning classes for citizens wishing to purchase guns would go a long way to helping this cause. If the US at least had these things, it would be at least a manageable compromise in my eyes.

This is a terrible idea. Are workers in nuclear or chemical plants required to go through yearly psyche eval? or air traffic controllers? or other jobs in positions from where they can inflict substantial casualties? Moreover, dumping tens and tens of millions of mandatory YEARLY visits onto an already critically understaffed and gutted mental health system is going to create the exact opposite result than the one you're hoping for. Instead of trying to help people who are at risk of becoming mass murderers, everyone is going to be tied up with dealing with millions of perfectly healthy people instead.

Of course, and I noted that in my post as well. The key here is that suicides tends not to be something done on impulse (not to say there aren't any), but rather it's something that slowly builds up to it. This is why there are suicide hotlines and prevention programs, which aims to stop people from getting to that critical point and get them help and support. This is something those of us in the military especially gets talked to often about (pre/post deployment, yearly classes etc).

People don't just wake up one day and suddenly decides to off themselves.

No of course, but people aren't typically the most meticulous when it comes to methods of suicide. Guns provide a very easy and accessible way to off oneself in a reliable manner. Other options at least give more chance for them to change their minds or survive the attempt of suicide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyp275

This is a terrible idea. Are workers in nuclear or chemical plants required to go through yearly psyche eval? or air traffic controllers? or other jobs in positions from where they can inflict substantial casualties? Moreover, dumping tens and tens of millions of mandatory YEARLY visits onto an already critically understaffed and gutted mental health system is going to create the exact opposite result than the one you're hoping for. Instead of trying to help people who are at risk of becoming mass murderers, everyone is going to be tied up with dealing with millions of perfectly healthy people instead.

Doesn't have to yearly, was just throwing out ideas out there. It could be made similar to your car license.

No of course, but people aren't typically the most meticulous when it comes to methods of suicide. Guns provide a very and accessible way to off oneself in a reliable manner. Other options at least give more chance for them to change their minds or survive the attempt of suicide.

Depends, personally I'm of the opinion that once someone made it all the way to the execution phase of their suicide plan, either through lack of support and help (or simply because no one noticed), then it's already too late, they aren't going to be deterred just because they have to jump off a building or a chair instead of pulling a trigger. The lack of access to guns certainly didn't stop those bully victims from killing themselves.

Surviving attempted suicide is more of a matter of luck, in most cases involving someone who quickly discovers the attempt (this includes suicides by guns, some people just can't aim very well...). In most cases the lethality of the methods aren't really meaningfully different (jumping off a high rise, or in front of train, or drive off a cliff....or into a tree at 120mph etc.)

Quote:

Doesn't have to yearly, was just throwing out ideas out there. It could be made similar to your car license.

I can see it maybe as part of the CCW licening/renewal (5 years here in MI), but you would really need to heavily bolster the mental health infrastructure if you want this extra burden on them (and not for the whole thing turn into a rubber-stamp sham).

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

Gun owners have rights -- but rights come with responsibilities and accountability. From too many gun owners, I'm getting no sense of community responsibility at all and its pissing me off because I end up having to explain why a gun can be useful to people whom I otherwise agree on most issues about.

For many, a gun is for protecting oneself against outside dangers. But what happen to the other.

BTW, what is your position on a obligation to use safety lock on gun ? Could thoses reduce the risk of someone using the gun of someone else, like it happened with so much school shooting ?

This argument is fallacious. The purpose of both items are not the same. A car is used to get to places faster. A gun is merely used to kill things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reckoner

If the single purpose of a gun other than for killing things is sport, I do not see how you can equivocate this to computers/cars which have far more productive uses for society in the hands of civilians. It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that guns somehow provide much more utility than being a lethal tool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Oh, just grow up already. A gun is a tool. It is a piece of mechanical technology developed by humans that utilizes the kinetic energy of a "slow" oxidation reaction to accelerate a small projectile at high velocity.

It is an inanimate object. It is not sentient nor does it have an inherent "evil" property.

I swear, the media has so poisoned people's minds that they think a useful tool is somehow possessed by a demonic force and must be destroyed.

I'm going to resound Reckoner's opinion. Because (@synaesthetic's comment): "to what extent can you apply this line of reasoning?". Can I say "a nuclear bomb is just a tool that utilizes fission to produce a rapid outburst of energy that manifests as an explosion"? Maybe it is, but there is a reason we don't use more nuclear bombs (not yet anyways). Reckoner already clarifies that he didn't say that it is "evil", just that guns are designed to kill (or at least, deal damage), "it is what it is".

There is such a thing as purpose in design. The fact that a car or a vending machine send people to their death does not mean they're designed with that purpose in mind. I can use my computer to bludgeon someone to death but everyone knows that computers aren't designed to be used like that. Your sports fencing tool is not designed to be used in warfare. Likewise, you don't bring a kitchen knife to a warzone or use a combat knife to cut your cabbage.

Guns are inherently designed to deal out (possibly lethal) damage, and dealing death is also within the intended purpose. Again, that does not mean that it is "evil", but it is what it is. Comparing guns with cars or computers or a freaking vending machine (sorry, I have to stress this out because that's how silly I think of this) that can deal death outside their intended purpose just isn't fair.

I've been following the thread for a while and one factor I've either missed or hasn't been brought up is that of storage. I know it differs from state to state but I honestly don't know so I'm asking; Does the US have any restrictions/laws for storing weapons at home?

Here in Sweden, if my information is correct, your first 3-4 weapons requires some kind of safe, lockable storage. Beyond that, you need to have a special weapons locker of some kind, though motivating why you need more than 4 weapons becomes harder. Not having either results in law enforcement visits or worse.

---

As for the rest of the thread, I align myself with both sides to some extent. As a Swede, guns are not an everyday thing and while I have fired hunting shotguns, and parts of my family are hunters, they still make me nervous if it's anywhere else but on a shooting range or in a forest. Carrying them in public is illegal anyhow. However, I don't support an outright ban, though I do support restriction and more thorough background checks, along with improvements in mental health solutions etc.

Guns are inherently designed to deal out (possibly lethal) damage, and dealing death is also within the intended purpose. Again, that does not mean that it is "evil", but it is what it is. Comparing guns with cars or computers or a freaking vending machine (sorry, I have to stress this out because that's how silly I think of this) that can deal death outside their intended purpose just isn't fair.

However, upon looking up the risks, I found that the comparison was correct. The yearly risk (in the United States) of dying from a shark attack is roughly 1 in 250 million. In contrast, the yearly risk of dying from a vending machine accident is roughly 1 in 112 million. The vending machine is indeed roughly twice as lethal as the shark!

So how can an inanimate object be more dangerous than a living predator! Regardless of inanimate or animate, purposed or not, anything that can be used as a tool can be just as deadly.

It is the user, not the tool that is at fault. Even the inventor of the AK-47 had stated that he intended for his gun to "protect the motherland", not for it to be copied and put in the hands of terrorists or robbers in North Hollywood.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

So how can an inanimate object be more dangerous than a living predator!

Humans generally avoid things like want to eat them. On the other hand, we generally pursue that which we want to eat. Vending machines contain things to eat. Ergo, we come in contact with them more often.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

It is the user, not the tool that is at fault. Even the inventor of the AK-47 had stated that he intended for his gun to "protect the motherland", not for it to be copied and put in the hands of terrorists or robbers in North Hollywood.

So how can an inanimate object be more dangerous than a living predator! Regardless of inanimate or animate, purposed or not, anything that can be used as a tool can be just as deadly.

It is the user, not the tool that is at fault. Even the inventor of the AK-47 had stated that he intended for his gun to "protect the motherland", not for it to be copied and put in the hands of terrorists or robbers in North Hollywood.

I'm not blaming the tool either. I just can't find a good reason to compare a gun with...a vending machine. That vending machines or other mundane things can be more deadly than sharks then proves to me that a lot more humans are less careful than I'd like to believe.

The creator for AK states that they are to protect the motherland...by dealing out damage or kill any invaders coming at his country. No matter how you try to sugarcoat it, firearms are still ultimately tools of destruction (again, I'm stressing that's not necessarily "evil").

I've been following the thread for a while and one factor I've either missed or hasn't been brought up is that of storage. I know it differs from state to state but I honestly don't know so I'm asking; Does the US have any restrictions/laws for storing weapons at home?

It varies from state to state - remember, we're actually 50 separate governments for many functions.

Quote:

As for the rest of the thread, I align myself with both sides to some extent.

As do I, to some degree. If we as a society are going to regulate the ownership of weapons, I want it done in a way that *actually reduces the violence*, not just a nicely titled law that makes idiots feel good but does nothing or even worse, creates more harm but at a level they can ignore.

The creator for AK states that they are to protect the motherland...by dealing out damage or kill any invaders coming at his country. No matter how you try to sugarcoat it, firearms are still ultimately tools of destruction (again, I'm stressing that's not necessarily "evil").

That is the issue - to put these tools of destruction in the hands of the right minds.

There are people out there who enjoy putting rounds into anything - wood, concrete, old cars, steel sheets just for the fun of hearing the "pling" or to test their natural instincts of physical estimation.

And there are some people who enjoy putting rounds into living food sources other than human beings - it is their idea of challenge to stalk-and-hunt. Despite their motives can be labelled as "homicidal" by "unreasonable" people (I remember telling a army clerk who tried to talk troopers out of holding guns using this concept, "If I could eat you, I wouldn't have hesitated to kill and cook you, gun or no gun."), as long as they don't hunt something they won't eat, it is still fine.

The people who are out of their minds are those who simply kill randomly, or to target those who are unable to defend themselves, are the ones that shouldn't be holding any weapons at all until they are back in their reasonable state of mind. And that is the motive - to put them back in that, not permanently in a straitjacket or a locked room.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.